Brad Wilcox says, "Liberals should be, I think, more focused on ... other forms of civic and communal life that allow them to kind of experience these in-person communities in ways that sort of will increase the odds of flourishing in multiple domains."
Unfortunately, that's how liberalism has morphed (or been hijacked) into "the successor ideology." The bond holding these "progressive" communities together is a dogmatic vision of "social justice" (aka, the Oppression Olympics) -- a belief system (or quasi-religion) striving for an orthodoxy (complete with Talmudic disputation) that's replaced "live and let live" as a communal ethic -- and that, in many instances, undergirds the notion of "chosen family."
Whether this "new dispensation" is conducive to happiness or flourishing is quite another question -- but it certainly explains why the "culture war" has taken on religious overtones, and why progressives tend to socialize within their own cliques.
Thus, the Religious Right alone is not the only culprit in instigating those culture wars. In many progressive circles, just try saying that you enjoy driving, or eating meat, or that you identify by your biological sex (rather than "gender identity"), or fail to apologize for being "white" or male. You will be excommunicated.
(It's happened to me -- a Jewish gay male. Or just ask Andrew Sullivan. In many so-called progressive, "queer" circles, support for same-sex marriage is itself derided as "heteronormative.")
The marriage question is an interesting sidelight or corollary, but there are larger issues at play: two very different perspectives on the nature of community -- and, indeed, on the nature of the human condition itself.
Comment/question for the author. Let me quote first:
"And so this massive shift from marriage is linked in the research to declines in happiness, increases in deaths of despair, and I think also to the hollowing out of the American dream for those communities."
When I was growing up, up until third grade when my father was pushed out just before his pension vested, he was a UPS driver. He could afford a family, had healthcare coverage, etc.
This is much harder now, in particular since these sort of jobs are subcontracted out to minimize the number of employees that UPS has on their health insurance policies, etc.
The article says you're a member of the AEI. How much do you find yourself in tension with the AEI over this issue? Does anyone at that elite economy-planning level internalize just how difficult it is to afford marriage and a family?
(IMO if anything I think it's this hollowing out that explains a lot of the political turmoil and upheaval now.)
I'm a man married to a man, and I'm quite surprised at Professor Wilcox, and maybe a little at Yascha, for putting so little emphasis on the special sense of stability that marriage carries with it in comparison to any other chosen relationship, no matter how heartfelt. More than the legal benefits that surround it (although they're relevant, too), maybe it's the public declaration of commitment before witnesses, or maybe it's the antiquity and near-universality of the institution itself, but it's something that sets marriage apart, even in this age of no-fault divorce.
I made it into my early sixties happy in my life and unmarried, and thought that I always would be. Unexpectedly, I was contacted by a man in Brazil, a country that I know well and had lived in before, but never expected to live in again. The attraction was instant, mutual, and deep, but if my now-husband had not been as interested in marriage as I was, I don't think that I would have taken the risk of turning my life upside-down and moving abroad for good. Marriage, made possible for us by court decisions in both of our countries relatively recently, was what gave me the security to act, and made possible the happiest ten years (so far) of my life.
I am probably the last person to get bogged down in PC word usage but I must confess a little discomfort with the entire conversation using "man & woman" and "husband and wife" exclusively. Come on guys, it's 2024! Same sex couples have been getting married and raising children for a while now. Would it have been too much to even briefly acknowledge that in some part of the conversation? No excuses, you can do better. Apologize and own it!
It's certainly a lapse (and definitely a shortcoming), but I'd say that it requires an acknowledgment rather than demanding an apology. Much of what they say can apply to same-sex couples (and marriages) as well. (Conversely, consider all the flak Andrew Sullivan or Pete Buttigieg have taken from the "queerer-than-thou" contingent.) Please see my own comment as to how and why this is so.
I won't get caught up in terminology; apologize, acknowledge, however you care to word it, just own the fact that you could have been more thoughtful and inclusive, as well as more accurate
If you don't want to get "bogged down" or "caught up" in squabbles, don't engage in them.
My point (more of an aside) was that you could have suggested that the discussion might be improved or enriched by including same-sex couples, rather than guilt-tripping the participants (i.e., demanding an apology). "Own it" suggests a chip on your shoulder. As they say down South, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Please see my longer post (and my reference to Andrew Sullivan and Pete Buttigieg) for context.
I've edited my original comment to further specify the inclusion of same-sex relationships in the framework of this discussion -- in that context, adding the sentence (noting how, in contrast), "In many so-called progressive, 'queer' circles, support for same-sex marriage is itself derided as 'heteronormative'."
I hope you understand why I regard this as an important aspect of the overall situation being discussed, and why (in that context) I'm reluctant to castigate the authors, and would prefer simply to welcome them (implicitly) as allies.
From what I know of Yascha Mounk, at least, that would seem to be an invitation he'd gladly accept.
Brad Wilcox says, "Liberals should be, I think, more focused on ... other forms of civic and communal life that allow them to kind of experience these in-person communities in ways that sort of will increase the odds of flourishing in multiple domains."
Unfortunately, that's how liberalism has morphed (or been hijacked) into "the successor ideology." The bond holding these "progressive" communities together is a dogmatic vision of "social justice" (aka, the Oppression Olympics) -- a belief system (or quasi-religion) striving for an orthodoxy (complete with Talmudic disputation) that's replaced "live and let live" as a communal ethic -- and that, in many instances, undergirds the notion of "chosen family."
Whether this "new dispensation" is conducive to happiness or flourishing is quite another question -- but it certainly explains why the "culture war" has taken on religious overtones, and why progressives tend to socialize within their own cliques.
Thus, the Religious Right alone is not the only culprit in instigating those culture wars. In many progressive circles, just try saying that you enjoy driving, or eating meat, or that you identify by your biological sex (rather than "gender identity"), or fail to apologize for being "white" or male. You will be excommunicated.
(It's happened to me -- a Jewish gay male. Or just ask Andrew Sullivan. In many so-called progressive, "queer" circles, support for same-sex marriage is itself derided as "heteronormative.")
The marriage question is an interesting sidelight or corollary, but there are larger issues at play: two very different perspectives on the nature of community -- and, indeed, on the nature of the human condition itself.
Comment/question for the author. Let me quote first:
"And so this massive shift from marriage is linked in the research to declines in happiness, increases in deaths of despair, and I think also to the hollowing out of the American dream for those communities."
When I was growing up, up until third grade when my father was pushed out just before his pension vested, he was a UPS driver. He could afford a family, had healthcare coverage, etc.
This is much harder now, in particular since these sort of jobs are subcontracted out to minimize the number of employees that UPS has on their health insurance policies, etc.
The article says you're a member of the AEI. How much do you find yourself in tension with the AEI over this issue? Does anyone at that elite economy-planning level internalize just how difficult it is to afford marriage and a family?
(IMO if anything I think it's this hollowing out that explains a lot of the political turmoil and upheaval now.)
I'm a man married to a man, and I'm quite surprised at Professor Wilcox, and maybe a little at Yascha, for putting so little emphasis on the special sense of stability that marriage carries with it in comparison to any other chosen relationship, no matter how heartfelt. More than the legal benefits that surround it (although they're relevant, too), maybe it's the public declaration of commitment before witnesses, or maybe it's the antiquity and near-universality of the institution itself, but it's something that sets marriage apart, even in this age of no-fault divorce.
I made it into my early sixties happy in my life and unmarried, and thought that I always would be. Unexpectedly, I was contacted by a man in Brazil, a country that I know well and had lived in before, but never expected to live in again. The attraction was instant, mutual, and deep, but if my now-husband had not been as interested in marriage as I was, I don't think that I would have taken the risk of turning my life upside-down and moving abroad for good. Marriage, made possible for us by court decisions in both of our countries relatively recently, was what gave me the security to act, and made possible the happiest ten years (so far) of my life.
I am probably the last person to get bogged down in PC word usage but I must confess a little discomfort with the entire conversation using "man & woman" and "husband and wife" exclusively. Come on guys, it's 2024! Same sex couples have been getting married and raising children for a while now. Would it have been too much to even briefly acknowledge that in some part of the conversation? No excuses, you can do better. Apologize and own it!
It's certainly a lapse (and definitely a shortcoming), but I'd say that it requires an acknowledgment rather than demanding an apology. Much of what they say can apply to same-sex couples (and marriages) as well. (Conversely, consider all the flak Andrew Sullivan or Pete Buttigieg have taken from the "queerer-than-thou" contingent.) Please see my own comment as to how and why this is so.
I won't get caught up in terminology; apologize, acknowledge, however you care to word it, just own the fact that you could have been more thoughtful and inclusive, as well as more accurate
If you don't want to get "bogged down" or "caught up" in squabbles, don't engage in them.
My point (more of an aside) was that you could have suggested that the discussion might be improved or enriched by including same-sex couples, rather than guilt-tripping the participants (i.e., demanding an apology). "Own it" suggests a chip on your shoulder. As they say down South, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Please see my longer post (and my reference to Andrew Sullivan and Pete Buttigieg) for context.
Cheers! :-)
wow, angry
Nah, just a constructive suggestion. Meanwhile, who's kvetching? (LOL!) ;-)
I've edited my original comment to further specify the inclusion of same-sex relationships in the framework of this discussion -- in that context, adding the sentence (noting how, in contrast), "In many so-called progressive, 'queer' circles, support for same-sex marriage is itself derided as 'heteronormative'."
I hope you understand why I regard this as an important aspect of the overall situation being discussed, and why (in that context) I'm reluctant to castigate the authors, and would prefer simply to welcome them (implicitly) as allies.
From what I know of Yascha Mounk, at least, that would seem to be an invitation he'd gladly accept.